So Much For Freedom Of Choice

Intelligent people always knew that the buzz-phrase "freedom of choice" was a mockery, something in which the pro-abortion crowd never believed.  Now they are dropping their pretenses.

Princeton "bioethicist" Peter Singer declared his latest schlock: "Women's reproductive rights may one day have to be sacrificed for the environment".  And where was he when he made this none-too-surprising statement?  Why, he was at that Women Deliver Conference last week, along with Melinda Gates, Kathleen Sebelius and Leroy Carhart.  What a charming bunch of folks.

(By the way - Women Deliver, Inc has 501c3 status.  I wonder if Lois Lerner made them jump through hoops and turn over their donor lists, website passwords, etc?  But I digress!)

Read that LifeSite News article; Singer's arrogance is actually quite typical of progressives.  Don't you just get a thrill when he says regarding women's rights, "there can be imaginable circumstances in which you may be justified in overriding them."  Wanna bet that Carhart and other abortionists in attendance were contemplating how they might "assist" in such "overriding"?

He's concerned - very concerned - about "greenhouse gases".  One immediate step he and all the other attendees could take would be to shut their mouths and stop emitting their own noxious gases.  But that won't happen.

I link to a previous post regarding the anti-life underpinnings of environmentalism.  These underpinnings were made starkly evident last week.  Please read and pass on.

Addendum: For a nice synopsis on real ecology in the service of humankind, see what Pope Francis says about the saving of babies as being the most important aspect of preserving environment.

Catholyc Feminazi: "Feel Guilty for NOT Aborting"

Yep!  You read that right - although if we think about it, we knew this was coming down the pike.

Elfrede Harth, at a "Women Deliver" conference in Washington DC last month, made that ludicrous statement.  Read more. 

She made other statements, some of which contradict each other - that is, if you understand some basic logic.  But what role does logic play in the pro-death, progressive mentality?  But I digress!  Here are her rather dubious oracles.

First, she spouts the rather-familiar complaint that the "Church suppresses freedom of conscience" for those who favor permissve attitudes towards child-murder.

Then she spouts the contradictory but equally nonsensical statement.  I'll pull this directly from the Lifesite News report.  Ultimately, said Harth, a woman has a right to abort because she "has a right to have a good life" and she does not have "the right to ruin it." "And if a pregnancy is going to ruin her life in any way, she has a right to get the abortion. She has the right. She has an obligation to protect her life from being ruined. ... Because you owe this respect to yourself because you're a child of God. You should feel guilty if you don't," she said. 

Do you see the contradiction?  Harth is saying that a pregnant woman doesn't have the "right to ruin her life."  But who gets to define for that hypothetical woman what constitutes "ruination of her life"?  Apparently Harth doesn't believe such a woman has a right to her freedom of conscience!  Harth is making clear that she is pro-death, and will do what she can to promote death as opposed to life.

We see this all the time at the abortuaries, with the deathscorts.  Their own consciences are so seared that they actaully want the women going in to have the abortions - no doubt to justify their actions and perhaps their own abortions.  They will always try to prevent us from approaching them, they will try to confiscate from the women information that we gave them (so much for alternatives, so so much for choice).  We've even seen them turn a blind eye from women who are obviously being dragged into the mills. 

Anyone who promotes abortion in any way, shape, fashion or form is living a lie.  The only way they can justify that lie is to perpetuate it in as many people as possible - whether those people want it or not!  That is being the push this past year to gag the pregnancy centers in Baltimore City and Montgomery County, and elsewhere in the country.

There's Intolerance - And There's Intolerance!!

As I said, sometimes "intolerance" is a good thing.  No parent in their right mind will "tolerate" a naughty child's bullying of his/her younger sibling, nor will they "tolerate" a stranger trying to lure them into a car.  Some behaviors are intolerable.  Such is the attitude of the Holy Father, as he seeks to address the dangers that confront the Church today.  Here's an excerpt from his homily during the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart: "The Church too must use the shepherd’s rod, the rod with which he protects the faith against those who falsify it, against currents which lead the flock astray. The use of the rod can actually be a service of love."  I commend the whole text to your reading.

Then there's the other intolerance.  I find it amusing how the progressives engage in disingenuous behavior - without apparent realization that they are showing their true colors.  At a recent pro-abort-feminazi conference in Washington DC, some pro-life activists were distributing literature on the public sidewalk in front of the place.  The feminazis were at the door, demanding that those who took the literature hand it over to them.  So much for their brand of "tolerance"!  So much for respect of others - and I speak of conference attendees, not the pro-lifers!  Read the whole account here and see a picture of one of these feminazi chumpions in action!